Jeremy's Witness Statement:

[Jane]

When did Jeremy clam her down during a psychotic episode?  Nevill is the one who supposedly had a calming effect on her not Jeremy, she didn't even want Jeremy to drive her home from Colin's place.  You need to stop making things up.

To perhaps get it into perspective, who would you rather take home from a party, your sister or the woman you hoped to renew a relationship with?

[scipio_usmc]

Caroline Hi  Jeremy would not call Julie in the middle of the night to tell her the harvest was going well just nonsense IMO.

He had no reason to call Julie at all but you are right that it is especially nonsense to try claiming he called to tell her harvesting was going well when he had already talked to her a few hours earlier about his work day.

The supposed context is that Nevill had phoned to say Sheila was raging with a gun come help.  So he calls Julie to take about harvesting?  Lookout is so desperate to make excuses for Jeremy that she never really thinks about how silly some of the things she comes up with truly are.

Someone who actually received a call from their father like Jeremy asserts occurred would not wake up their girlfriend at all.  he claims at first he did not think the situation was serious so that is why he didn't call 999 or call police right away. Calling your girlfriend before police still makes no sense. You wake your girfriend to say something may be wrong at WHF but you are not positive or not.  Why would you do that?  At best you call and wake her when you find out they are hurt for sure and you need someone to comfort you. 

The only explanation for his call is that it was to support his alibi.  He told police that proof he received the call from Nevill is that he phoned his girlfriend after receiving such call and told her about the call.  Indeed, he called her again at 6AM to tell her not to go to work because he needed her to talk to police and tell them about how he called her at 3AM.

I have never seen anyone come up with anything else as a plausible reason for that 3AM call.  Aside from the roomates saying it was at 3Am so well before the call to police it is obvious it can't have been after the call to police because he was on the phone with police for 11 minutes and had to rush out to meet police so didn't have time at that point and would have told her how he had called the police and had to go meet them but had not told her such.

Jeremy's staunchest defenders never really want to look in detial at how little sense his actions made.   

[lookout]

 Try understanding about people if it's humanely possible for you.

[Adam]

Jeremy in his WS says he phoned Julie at about 3:25am.


Mmmm

[grahameb]

Jeremy in his WS says he phoned Julie at about 3:25am.


Mmmm

And so did JM in her witness statement. And so did one of the other people who was staying in the same place she was.
Hmmmm.

[Adam]

How can he ring Julie at  3:25am and the police at 3:26am ?

I know, the conversation with Julie was very quick, less than a minute.

Julie's WS said Jeremy said 'everything is going well, there is something wrong at the farm, love you lots'. Julie told him to 'go back to bed' and put the phone down = 1 minute.

So Jeremy phoned Julie at 3:25am and the police at 3:26am. After spending 16 minutes looking for the phone number of a police station miles away.

[grahameb]

How can he ring Julie at  3:25am and the police at 3:26am ?

I know, the conversation with Julie was very quick, less than a minute.

Julie's WS said Jeremy said 'everything is going well, there is something wrong at the farm, love you lots'. Julie told him to 'go back to bed' and put the phone down = 1 minute.

So Jeremy phoned Julie at 3:25am and the police at 3:26am. After spending 16 minutes looking for the phone number of a police station miles away.

So that must have been the reason JM changed the times then?

[scipio_usmc]

So that must have been the reason JM changed the times then?

Julie didn't change the time, she didn't know what time it was.  Her roomates told her what time it was. Two of her roomates were certain it was 3.  Her other roomate thought 3:15 though she was not positive and said it could have been as late as 3:30.  Jeremy was on the phone with police from 3:26-3:37 and then ran out to meet police so obviously he called before he called police. He initially lied to police saying he called her after but during questioning he admitted the truth then claimed he wasn't sure who he called first.  He wasn't sure what to do because his web enveloped him.

The most reliable time seems to be around 3AM since that is what the 2 roomates most certain say.  It hads nothign to do with Julie coming up with the time because she wasn't sure and is relying on her roomates.

[lookout]

They were all smashed ! Didn't know whether it was Christmas Day or Pancake Tuesday-----unreliable !

[Adam]

From the 2002 appeal:

101. At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never". The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep. As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.

102. A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.

103. Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.

104. Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.

[lookout]

 More C&P.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[grahameb]

From the 2002 appeal:

101. At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never". The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep. As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.

102. A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.

103. Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.

104. Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.

But don't those alleged words of his rather imply that he was not at the farm that night? Why would he say "something's wrong at the farm"?

[scipio_usmc]

But don't those alleged words of his rather imply that he was not at the farm that night? Why would he say "something's wrong at the farm"?

He called her so that he coudl tell police he called her.

He told her that because that was what he wanted her to tell police she told him.

The ONLY reaosn he calle dher was to try to get her to bloster his bogus claim he received a call from nevill.

There was no other reason for him to actually call her and no other reason for him to call her at 6AM to tell her not to go to work but instead to stay home because she would need to tell police how he had called her earlier.

ONly a fool can't see he clale dher simply so she could say he called and try to bolster his claim that he had received a call from Nevill.  What he was trying to do was very transparent.

But then again you are too biased to even admit that he was using the call as an alibi so expecting you to face it would be silly, you are too biased to ever admit the truth.

[Adam]

For Grahame.

[Mr. Gee]

For Grahame.

Scipio used the word "biased" in referring to me. This is true. Although I would not say that I was "too" biased. The same of course is true of him and if I might be so bold to suggest, by you as well.
I will further add that there is nothing wrong with bias, as long as it is in agreement with truth.
The word that I would describe scipio as and begging your pardon you as well is "prejudiced". Now that is a word that has tremendous force behind it and carries with it a very negative trait within a person.
That is what scipio really meant when he called me biased and indeed too biased to see things correctly.
When in fact there is nothing to even suggest that Jeremy phoned Mugford to create an alibi. Except of course in scipio's own dastardly creative and destructive mind.